Tasman District Council
Regulatory Committee Agenda – 01 April 2021
8 Reports
8.1
Resource Consents Manager's
Report
Information Only - No Decision
Required
|
Report To:
|
Regulatory Committee
|
|
Meeting Date:
|
1 April 2021
|
|
Report Author:
|
Phil Doole, Principal Planner; Tania Harris, Resource
Consents Manager
|
|
Report Number:
|
RRC21-04-1
|
1.1 This report presents a summary of the activities of the Resource
Consent Section for the past seven months since the last report to the
Regulatory Committee in July 2020, including compliance with statutory
timeframes for the first half of the 2020-2021 financial year.
1.2 For the processing of 560 resource consent applications, including
variations to existing consents, 82% compliance with statutory timeframes was
achieved through the six month period.
1.3 Eleven Special Housing Area (SHA) consents including two variations
to existing SHA consents were also completed.
1.4 There is one live appeal to the Environment Court and 24 objections
to staff decisions to be resolved.
1.5 This report also outlines current workloads and notable jobs that
have been progressed over the past seven months, including consenting for SHAs
and the Covid-19 Recovery (Fast-track consenting) Act 2020.
That the Regulatory Committee receives the
Resource Consents Manager's Report
RRC21-04-1.
3.1 This report presents a summary of the performance of the Resource
Consent Section relating to compliance with statutory timeframes for the first
half of the 2020-2021 financial year. It provides a status update for appeals
to the Environment Court and objections to staff decisions. It also summarises
the current workload and notable jobs that have been progressed since the last
report to the Committee in July 2020. It represents the time of transition from
Phil Doole to Tania Harris as Resource Consent Manager.
4 Summary
of Resource Consent Processing to 31 December 2020 (Six Months)
4.1 We
received 640 applications for resource consents and other matters during the
six months up to 31 December 2020 (compared with 742 in the same period in
2019). The volumes of District land use and subdivision applications have
continued at similar levels to last year reflecting the continuing surge in
residential developments including the SHAs. Some urban intensification
is happening in the form of compact density and comprehensive developments, as
well as other in-fill housing. There are many applications for second dwellings
on both urban and rural sites. There have been fewer discharge permits
associated with rural-residential subdivisions and fewer applications for water
permits, compared to the same period last year.
4.2 Tables 1 and 2 below present summaries of the various types of
applications for which processing was completed (i.e. decisions made) during
the six months July-December 2020, showing median processing days, and
compliance with statutory timeframes.
Table 1: Timeliness
Results (July-December 2020) Non-notified Applications
|
Type of Application
|
Number Complete
2017*
|
Number Complete
2018*
|
Number Complete 2019*
|
Number Complete
2020*
|
Percentage Within Time
(includes
s37)
|
Median Processing Days**
|
|
District Land
|
292
|
276
|
237
|
248
|
90%
|
25
|
|
Cons Notice Variations
|
11
|
7
|
10
|
8
|
100%
|
26
|
|
Subdivision
|
67
|
83
|
65
|
59
|
65%
|
38
|
|
Coastal
|
10
|
3
|
8
|
27
|
67%
|
20
|
|
Discharge
|
67
|
55
|
59
|
85
|
74%
|
37
|
|
Regional Land
|
10
|
11
|
14
|
17
|
82%
|
54
|
|
Water Permit
|
39
|
78
|
362
|
72
|
94%
|
17**
|
|
Total:
|
496
|
513
|
755
|
516
|
84%
|
28**
|
|
SHA consents
|
|
8
|
10
|
11
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
|
Boundary Notices (10 days)
|
30
|
14
|
26
|
96%
|
8
|
|
Others***
|
17
|
14
|
25
|
17
|
n/a
|
n/a
|
|
Notes for this Table continue on
next page
|
|
* The numbers shown include
applications to change conditions of existing consents (variations).
|
|
** Processing days are statutory
working days including time extensions (Refer paragraph 4.5 below). The
median days shown for water permits and the Total non-notified applications,
exclude applications processed as bulk “renewals” for the Upper
Buller and other water management zones.
|
|
*** “Others” include
Rights of Way (7), Outline Plans (5) and Certificates of Compliance (5).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 2: Timeliness Results
(July-December 2020) Notified Applications
|
Type
of Application
|
Number
Complete 2017
|
Number
Complete 2018
|
Number
Complete 2019
|
Number
Complete 2020
|
Percentage
Within Time (includes s37)
|
Average
Processing Days*
|
|
Publicly Notified Applications (No
Hearing)
|
|
All
|
16
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
100%
|
325
|
|
Publicly Notified Applications
(With Hearing)
|
|
All
|
22
|
2
|
0
|
1
|
100%
|
171
|
|
Limited Notified Applications (No
Hearing)
|
|
All
|
3
|
10
|
8
|
38
|
40%
|
178**
|
|
Limited Notified Applications (With
Hearing)
|
|
All
|
15
|
0
|
8
|
4
|
100%
|
173
|
|
Totals:
|
56
|
12
|
16
|
44
|
48%
|
n/a
|
|
* Processing days are statutory
working days including time extensions. The timeframes for notified
applications include a variety of time extensions such as resolving issues
with submitters, agreements for hearing dates and adjourned hearings. **
|
|
** All of the 23 limited notified
applications that went over time were for one 10-lot rural-residential
subdivision proposal that required 20 discharge permits.
|
4.3 Table 3 shows a summary of the types of decisions on resource
consent applications completed in the six-month period.
Table 3: Resource Consents Summary
of Decisions
|
Type of Decision
|
Number
|
|
Granted by Independent Commissioners
|
3
|
|
Granted by Councillor Panel
|
0
|
|
Granted by Mixed Panel (Commissioner &
Councillor)
|
4
|
|
Granted by Council staff under Delegated Authority
|
553
|
4.4 The
decisions in Table 3 above required one Commissioner hearing and two mixed
panel hearings.
4.5 Fifty-five percent of the other resource consent applications
completed also had Section 37 time extensions applied, about half of those at
the request of, or with, the applicant’s agreement. All of the water
permit renewals had time extensions applied, as agreed by the applicants. Sixty
percent of the other (non-water) consents completed had time extensions
applied, compared to 55% last year, about half of those at the request of, or
with, the applicant’s agreement. A portion of those were delayed by the Covid-19
lockdown restrictions in the first half of 2020. Otherwise, time extensions are
typically required for large and/or complex subdivisions with associated land
use and discharge permits and other special circumstances.
4.6 In past years, requests from applicants to put their applications
“on hold” for various reasons were also treated as agreed time
extensions, to conform to the National Monitoring System. However, the latest
amendments to the Resource Management Act 1991 that took effect from 30 September
2020 now provide for the process to be suspended by the applicant for any
application, whereas this was previously restricted to notified applications
only.
4.7 Twenty-seven
percent of all applications required a further information request (compared to
31% in the previous year).
4.8 Approvals
for new rights-of-way (ROWs) are often included with subdivision
consents. Otherwise approval can be given for ROWs under the Local Government Act 1974 – seven of those were completed
during the six month period.
4.9 Other work related to resource consents
includes the two subsequent approval steps for subdivisions, known as section
223 and section 224 approvals – 59 and 66 of
those were completed during the six-month period (compared to 63 and 61,
respectively, during the same period last year). This
workflow reflects the continuing demand for new residential allotments and the
pace of development, including several large developments involving stages.
Approvals for the larger subdivisions can be quite complex and time consuming,
particularly when requisitions have to be issued to get corrections made to
legal deeds and/or plans.
5.1 The discount regulations that apply to Council’s charges for
processing resource consent applications require a “sliding scale
percentage discount” of 1% for each day that processing goes over time,
rising to a maximum 50% discount.
5.2 For the six-month period, there were 47
applications, involving a total of 105 consents that were completed out of
time, resulting in 47 fee discounts ranging from 3% to 50%. These discounts
total $39,500 excluding GST (compared with $11,200 total discounts for the same
period in the 2019-2020 year).
5.3 These discounts mainly result from the ongoing surge in subdivision workload associated with the growth in
residential demand in the District, including zoning uplifts and SHAs, which
unfortunately has coincided with continuing staff changes. There were
also delays related to the Covid-19 pandemic not covered by the time extensions
referred to above.
5.4 One
10-lot rural subdivision proposal accounts for 23 of the consents that ran over
time, and 14 coastal/discharge permit variations were also delayed by staff
gaps.
5.5 Several other applications that have been completed since 31
December 2020 or are still in progress have also gone over time as a result of
these challenges.
6 Marginal or Temporary Consent Exemptions
6.1 The
RMA amendments that took effect from 18 October 2017 created two types of
“consent exemption” notices, those being “deemed permitted
boundary activities”, and other “marginal or temporary
exemptions”.
6.2 Applications
for Deemed Permitted Boundary Activities require the written approval of
the owner(s) of the property on the other side of the infringed boundary.
As shown in Table 1 above, 26 Boundary Exemption Notices were issued over the
six month period.
6.3 Notices issued for marginal or temporary breaches of plan
rules are referred to as MOTCEs (pronounced “MOT-SEES”). Ten
MOTCE Notices were issued over the six month period, for a wide variety of
activity types including minor building work, minor earthworks, temporary
dewatering, and urgent pesticide spraying to control pest plants in streams.
7 National Monitoring System
7.1 Details of our resource consent processing results are required to
be sent annually to the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) as part of the
National Monitoring System. The data is verified by MfE. Results for the five
years up to 2018-2019 are publicly available to view on the MfE website. https://www.mfe.govt.nz/rma/rma-monitoring. Our results for the
2019-2020 year were sent to MfE in December. The collation and verification
process for the 2019-2020 data has been delayed by the Covid-19 pandemic.
8 Objections to Decisions Made Under Delegation
8.1 There
are 24 live objections to consents granted by staff under delegated authority,
and 10 others were resolved or withdrawn during the reporting period.
Twenty-three of the live objections are on water permit renewals, involving 12
consent holders.
8.2 An
objection lodged in February 2018 against conditions
imposed on a water permit and two associated dam consents for taking water to
storage in the Mt Heslington area (the deemed Reservoir Zone) is yet to be
resolved. An extensive response was made by Council staff to the matters of
objection, but not accepted, and a hearing will likely be required. Another
objection has also been lodged regarding a fourth related consent granted in
December 2020 for water take from storage. Consents staff are endeavouring to
maintain consistency with other Reservoir Zone water permits.
8.3 An
objection lodged in May 2018 regarding conditions of consent imposed for the
supermarket proposed at the Salisbury Road/Champion Road intersection in
Richmond raised issues relating to upgrade of the road frontages and traffic
roundabout. The issues have been resolved by agreement with the Council’s
Engineering Services Department, and the objection was withdrawn in February
2021.
8.4 An
objection was lodged in September 2019 against a condition on a subdivision
consent requiring land to vest for road widening without compensation in Bird
Lane, Wakefield. The condition is to be consistent with previous consents
in that locality, and staff advised the objector accordingly. This objection
was withdrawn in July 2020.
8.5 An
objection was lodged in November 2019 against a condition on a subdivision
consent requiring land to vest as road without compensation for widening at the
Gardner Valley Road/Best Road intersection. Agreement was reached with the
consent holder regarding partial compensation for additional land being taken,
and the objection was resolved in November 2020.
8.6 Upper
Motueka Water Zone: six objections were received in 2019 regarding replacement
water permits issued in the Upper Motueka water management zones, raising a mix
of issues. Four of these objections have been resolved. The issues raised by
the other two objectors, being their reduced take allocations based on bona
fide use levels, could not be resolved and a hearing is being scheduled.
8.7 Waimea
Water Zone: Seventeen objections have been received to date regarding the
replacement water permits issued for the Waimea water management zones, raising
a mix of issues relating to the bona fide reviews, specific soil information,
and rootstock survival. Consents staff are considering these objections. Four
have been withdrawn and two resolved, leaving 11 outstanding. Some technical
matters may be resolvable.
8.8 Redwoods
Water Zone: six objections were received regarding replacement water permits in
the Redwoods water management zone, raising a mix of issues relating to bona
fide reviews and the creation of the Redwoods water management zone by Plan
Change 67. Consents staff are considering these objections. One objection has
been withdrawn. Some technical matters appear to be resolvable, but the
water zone matter is out of scope for consent objections. Council staff have
met with the remaining three parties (five objections) and provided substantial
information in support the decisions made on the new permits. These consent
holders have been asked whether they wish to proceed to a hearing or withdraw
their objections.
8.9 Aorere/West
Coast Water Zones: one objection has been received on a replacement water
permit, relating to the bona fide review for that water take.
8.10 An
objection was lodged in January 2021 against a condition on the subdivision
consent for the Applebyfield Special Housing Area T01-03 requiring the Borck
Creek greenway/ floodway area to vest as drainage reserve with compensation to
be payable by the Council only for the additional width of the floodway that is
required to provide capacity for upstream development. This objection may
require a hearing.
9.1 Two
appeals to the Environment Court have been active during the reporting period:
one was withdrawn in September 2020, and one lodged in December 2020. Refer to Table 5 below for further details.
Table 5: Appeals
Appellant
|
Matter
|
Status
|
|
WLC Trustee
Limited
(Applicant)
|
Subdivision
Consent RM181013 was granted in March 2019 for a 2-lot subdivision off Thorp
Street Motueka, requiring a walkway reserve with compensation to provide
access to Thorp Bush. An objection to this condition was heard and dismissed
by an Independent Commissioner, except for some clarifications to the
conditions.
|
Environment Court mediation scheduled
for 27 July 2020.
This Appeal was withdrawn
following the mediation session.
The consent is effective with
conditions per the Commissioner’s decision.
|
|
T & L Drach
(Submitter)
|
Subdivision
consent RM191100 was granted in November 2020 by a Mixed Panel for a 2-lot
subdivision of Dawson Road in the Mapua Rural-Residential Zone.
|
Appeal lodged on
10 December 2020. The parties are conferring. Awaiting Court directions
regarding mediation or a hearing.
|
10.1 Three
reviews of consents have been progressed during the reporting period.
10.2 A
review was carried out of a subdivision consent granted in April 2020 relating
to the Industrial Zone at Bird Lane Wakefield, on the grounds that the
application for consent did not accurately state the intended use of the
proposed access and therefore the potential adverse effects of the development
on an adjoining residential property could not be properly assessed. That
review is been completed: an acceptable outcome regarding the new industrial
access was negotiated with the consent holder and the adjoining neighbour.
10.3 A review is being carried out of a subdivision consent granted in
May 2019 for a site in the Rural 3 Zone at Williams Road, Tasman on the grounds
that the application for consent did not accurately describe the overall
landscape and boundary plantings to be carried out and therefore the potential
adverse effects of the development on an adjoining property could not be
properly assessed. Those neighbours have lodged a submission and a hearing is
to be held by an independent Commissioner during April 2021.
10.4 A review
is underway regarding a consent granted in 2018 to authorise the keeping of
four dogs on a residential property in Richmond, on the grounds that a
redundant affected person’s approval was submitted with the consent
application. The neighbours have lodged a submission and a hearing was held by
an independent Commissioner on 19 March 2021. A decision is due before
close of business on 13 April 2021.
11 Resource
Management Act Amendments
11.1 During 2020, Parliament passed amendments to the Resource Management
Act 1991 (RMA), several of which affect resource management consenting. Two
changes that took effect from 29 September, and that will have most impact on
current practice are:
· Repeal of the
preclusions from public notification for some subdivisions and some residential
activities; and
· New provisions
that will allow applicants for non-notified applications to suspend processing
– this is similar to what can already be done for notified applications,
and it should solve the issue of long time extensions mentioned above see
(paragraphs 4.6).
Another of the 2020
amendments reversed a previous 2017 amendment that would have required reserves
financial contributions to be converted into development contributions.
12 Water
Permit & Irrigation Dam Consent Renewals
12.1 Waimea
and Redwoods Water Management Zones: almost all of the 290+ applications for
new water permits have been completed, with two still outstanding including the
Waimea East Irrigation Company which has 200 plus users for which details of
affiliation to the Waimea Dam need to be confirmed. These two outstanding
applications are expected to be resolved shortly. Fourteen objections are
outstanding, as summarised above.
12.2 Priority
has been given to requests for allocation sharing in the Waimea Zones prompted
by water restrictions being imposed over the summer season. Priority is also
being given to applications to change water users’ affiliation
statuses.
12.3 Aorere/West
Coast Water Management Zones: all of the 20 applications to replace permits in
these zones that expired on 31 May 2018, have been completed. One objection has
been received, as summarised above.
12.4 Tākaka Water
Management Zone: Seventy seven applications to replace permits in this zone
that also expired on 31 May 2018, have been given lower priority because of the
proposed Water Conservation Order for Te Waikoropūpu Springs and the expected Proposed Plan Change for this water
management zone. Sixty-two of these applications
qualify to be processed as “renewals”: those which have no change
in volume or rationing conditions will be issued when they are completed;
whereas those which involve a change in volume or rationing will be issued
together on 01 May 2021, so that any objections can be considered in an orderly
manner. Seven applications that do not meet the Controlled Activity
“renewal” criteria will be processed as new applications for new
water, to be considered on their merits. The other applications include two dam
related permits, and four Abel Tasman Zone permits to be considered later. One
permit was given priority due to a property sale, and two applications have
been withdrawn. The new permits will introduce new requirements for an
Irrigation Management Plan and nutrient information record keeping by permit
holders.
12.5 Irrigation Dams: similarly, 70 applications for replacement dam
consents have been lower priority. Twenty replacement consents have been issued
to date and the remaining applications will be processed once the work on the Tākaka permits including the objections
is largely completed.
12.6 Upper Buller
Water Management Zone: Twenty applications have been received to replace water
permits for this zone that expired on 31 May 2020. Most of these have
been granted, except for two complicated applications relating
to the Mangles River that are now close to completion. No objections have been
received on the granted permits.
12.7 All applicants including those who have
lodged objections can continue operating under their expired water permit
conditions including the rates of water take therein, until their replacement
permit commences.
13 Special
Housing Areas Consenting
13.1 Consent
applications for the Special Housing Areas (SHAs) in Tasman District are
processed in accordance with the provisions of the Housing Accords and Special
Housing Areas Act 2013 (HASHAA), which adopts much of the RMA consenting
process but differs with regard to infrastructure and notification
requirements.
13.2 The
SHAs in Tasman District were formally disestablished per Section 18 of the
HASHAA on 16 September 2019, and the Act allows a period of two years for
consent applications that were lodged by that date to be processed.
Progress made on SHA consent applications over the past seven months is
summarized below.
13.3 For
SHA T1-02 in the Richmond West Development Area, “The Meadows”
subdivision comprising 470 residential units to be located on the northwest
side of Borck Creek with frontage to McShane Road was granted consent in July
2019. Several amendments to the subdivision and land use consents were
granted in May 2020, including the allowable building coverage being increased
to 45% on all allotments that will be 480m2 or less. Some
further variations have been proposed, including clarification as to how noise
mitigation can be achieved in dwellings and other residential units. These
consents will also need to be amended to recognise the area that the Ministry
of Education is acquiring for a new primary school.
13.4 Consents
were granted in November 2020 for a 379 residential lot subdivision in SHA
T1-03 Applebyfields, also in the Richmond West Development Area. They include changes to the layout of Poutama Drain and provisions relating to
the State Highway 6 Bypass designation including an acoustic barrier.
13.5 Consent
applications for the two SHAs in Richmond East (being T01-07 and T01-09) have
progressed, the most significant issue being management of stormwater run-off
from both of these areas. Additional modelling of the stormwater catchment was
undertaken during 2020 to determine that there is adequate capacity for these
two proposed developments.
13.6 For
SHA T01-07 Angelus Avenue, consents were granted in October 2020 for 52
residential allotments and another 20 units for tourist accommodation purposes
along with a café/restaurant in a community hub. The residential
allotments include nine higher density units clustered in the middle of the
site. This development is to be completed in four stages.
13.7 The
consent applications for SHA T01-09 Highland Drive were put on hold by the
applicant for several months, and a revised development scheme plan was
presented in March. The applicant is proposing to reduce the scale of the
development from 87, down to 65 residential allotments. Processing of
these applications will resume when an amended application is
received.
13.8 The
consent application for SHA T01-04 at Marahau, for 52 residential allotments,
has had requests for further information, particularly regarding natural
hazards and wastewater management. The applicant has been advised that
individual discharges of wastewater to land on each allotment is not supported
by Council staff because of the risk to the groundwater as the source of
drinking water for many of the existing dwellings at Marahau. The feasibility
of providing a communal wastewater system for this development is now being
considered.
13.9 Consent
applications lodged under the HASHAA must be completed by 16 September 2021,
when that Act expires. After that date Council will not have any
authority to continue processing or to grant consents. The usual RMA
consenting pathways will be available.
14 Covid-19 Recovery
(Fast-track) Consenting
14.1 The
Covid-19 Recovery (Fast track) Consenting Act commenced in July 2020. The
purpose of this Act is to “urgently promote employment to support New
Zealand’s recovery from the economic and social impacts of Covid-19 and
to support the certainty of on-going investment across New Zealand, while
continuing to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical
resources.”
14.2 The Act
provides for expert consenting panels to consider projects that are referred by
the Minister of the Crown responsible for administering the Act. The processing
of applications is to be carried out by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). The Council has opportunities to input to the process, including
nomination of one person to the expert hearing panel.
One application relating to Tasman
District has been made under this Act to date: that is for the proposed
“The Vines” housing development on a site at Main Road, Hope which
missed out on Special Housing Area status (T01-06). This application was
accepted by the EPA on 5 March 2021 and the process is underway.
As determined in a previous meeting Cr
Dana Wensley will be nominated as the panel member for the expert hearing
panel.
15 Essential Freshwater Package
15.1 The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 (NPSFM
2020) and the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for
Freshwater) 2020
(NES-F 2020) took effect on 3 September 2020.
15.2 The overall objectives of Essential Freshwater are to:
· Stop
further degradation of our freshwater
· Start
making immediate improvements so water quality improves within five years, and
· Reverse past damage to bring our waterways and ecosystems to a
healthy state within a generation.
The Essential Freshwater
package signals a significant change in how we deal with activities affecting
freshwater. Instrumental in implementing that significant change is the
fundamental concept of Te Mana o te Wai
15.3 In terms of consenting this means that, when relevant to the
proposed activities:
· the
significance of adverse effects for notification decisions are informed by the
NPSFM 2020. Whether a proposal prioritises the health and well-being of
waterbodies and freshwater ecosystems is relevant in assessing the significance
of an adverse effect; and
· decision
makers must “have regard to” the relevant provisions of the NPSFM
2020 and NES-F 2020 when making final decisions on consent applications. These
need to be ‘weighed’ against other matters in s104 of the RMA, but
the NPSFM 2020 carries ‘considerable weight’ and inconsistency with
the hierarchy of obligations is likely to mean consent should be declined.
15.4 The NES-F 2020 does not contain objectives or policies but includes
‘rules’ permitting or requiring resource consent for specific
activities. These rules override the TRMP. The NES-F regulates the
following:
· farming activities (including feedlots, stockholding areas,
agricultural intensification, intensive winter grazing, and the application of
synthetic nitrogen fertiliser);
· activities related to wetlands the reclamation of rivers (including
streams); and
· activities
that affect fish passage (e.g. culverts, weirs, dams etc.).
15.5 These
new regulations have introduced a range of new consenting requirements, and are
requiring an intensive consideration across the Regional Council sector as to
how they are to be interpreted, in relation to several matters such as the
definition of wetlands, what “agricultural intensification” means
in practice.
Regional Councils are working together
to produce consistent advice across the country. They are currently
clarifying several potential issues with Ministry for Environment staff.
Also to note is the winter grazing consenting that was due to start this year
has been moved back a year.
16 Other
Notable Application Work since July 2020
16.1 Other notable applications and proposals dealt with over the past
eight months are:
16.1.1 Drag Racing Motueka Aerodrome: the
Nelson Drag Racing Association’s 10-year consent expired in May
2019. They applied to continue with four events per year (the permitted
activity rule in the TRMP allows two events per year). The application
was publicly notified and attracted 106 submissions, only two of which were
opposed. Submitters in support were asked to
withdraw their request to be heard, so that the application could be completed
without need for a hearing. A new consent was issued in November 2020.
16.1.2 Nelson
Speedway: the Nelson Speedway Association Inc applied for consent to amend
the timing of the race meetings they can hold between October and April each
year at Lansdowne Road, near Richmond. Public notification was requested
and attracted over 750 submissions mostly supportive. A hearing was held
with an Independent Commissioner in November 2020, resulting in a new consent
being granted for continuing operation of the speedway.
16.1.3 Olive Estate Expansion: the Integrity
Care Group has applied for consents to expand their Olive Estate Lifestyle
Village onto what was the “Nicoll Block” between Langdale Drive and
Hill Street in Richmond. The proposal includes shifting the care facility
up to the new Hill Street frontage next to Brenda Lawson Way, and does not make provision for a public neighbourhood reserve
as shown on the TRMP Planning Map. The application was publicly notified
in June 2020 and attracted 76 submissions, some 80% are opposed to various
aspects of the proposal. This application is currently being heard by
independent Commissioners.
16.1.4 Pōhara
Flood Protection Works: this application by Council’s Engineering
Services Department for flood protection works on Ellis and Barnett Creeks at
Pōhara was limited notified to affected landowners and others in December
2019. Three submissions were received. This application process was
suspended while the applicant carried out further consultation with the
submitters, and a hearing has been scheduled for May 2021.
16.1.5 Global
Stormwater Discharges: this application by Council’s Engineering
Services Department for “global” consents to authorise discharges
of stormwater from the stormwater drainage networks was publicly notified in
October 2019, and attracted one submission in support. Progress has been
made on draft consent conditions with the aim of being able to grant consents
without need for a hearing. This Council application has been referred to an
Independent Commissioner for decision.
16.1.6 Biosolids
Disposal on Moturoa / Rabbit Island: the Nelson Regional Sewerage
Business Unit (a joint entity of Nelson City Council and Tasman District
Council) has applied for replacement consents to continue the disposal of
biosolids from the Wastewater Treatment Plant on Bell Island in Waimea Inlet,
to land on Moturoa/Rabbit Island. Their consents expired in October 2020, but
they can continue this activity a decision is made on their application.
A Cultural Impact Assessment has been provided, and the notification decision
is currently being worked on.
16.1.7 Airstrip
at Awaroa: an application for a second private airstrip at Awaroa on the
Abel Tasman Coast has been put on hold, pending the outcome of Environment
Court proceedings to determine what existing use rights pertain to the existing
airstrip.
16.1.8 Other
Limited Notified Applications: several current applications have been
limited notified to neighbours, including multiple dwellings on a site,
“in-fill” rural residential and rural lifestyle subdivision
proposals, and an additional dwelling on a shared access. Several of
these have attracted opposing submissions and are likely to require
hearings. Several other rural life style subdivisions have been able to
obtain all affected person approvals.
16.1.9 Richmond
Intensive Development Area: several applications have been processed over
the past 6 months for new housing developments within this area, to re-develop
existing residential lots close to the town centre.
16.1.10 Tiny
Homes: a consent was granted for a two month expo held on a site beside
Goodman Reserve in Motueka; written approvals having been obtained from the
owners of properties adjoining the site entrance. Consent staff have
contributed to the expo, and are also providing advice to enquirers regarding
the suitability of potential sites including whether those in rural zones may
conflict with rural production activities.
17 Iwi Liaison and Statutory
Acknowledgements
17.1 For many
years we have been sending weekly lists of resource consent applications to
local iwi for them to identify any proposal of interest, thereby assisting
Council to achieve its obligations under the Resource Management Act and the
TRMP to recognise Maori cultural values and provide for in the consenting
process.
17.2 From
1 February 2015 the lists of applications have been sent to all of the
eight Te Tau Ihu iwi, to assist with meeting Council’s obligations
regarding Statutory Acknowledgement Areas that took legal effect from that
date. Assistance is given to iwi representatives for navigation of the
Tasman Resource Management Plan and how the various RMA rules apply (or not) to
matters of interest or concern to iwi.
17.3 A
well-attended hui was held with iwi representatives and consenting staff during
February 2021. While consent process matters were discussed the topics of
building cultural awareness, acknowledging tikanga, and working closer together
were also covered. The korero was positive and encouraging to build on
the relationship with iwi and staff. It was agreed that another hui
should take place in six months – approximately August to September.
18 Current Staffing,
Contractors and Workloads
18.1 Staff
recruitment and retention challenges continue – it is now over to four
years since the resource consents section was fully staffed. Approvals
have been given over the past four years to increase staff numbers to match the
increase in workload, but we have not been able to maintain a full complement of
staff over that time.
18.2 An
Organisation Review carried out during 2019-2020 determined a need for
additional staff resources. The Review reconfigured the section Manager’s
role, created a second Principal Planner position, a new Subdivision Approvals
position and another position to assist with the increased workload for PIMs
and LIMs, as well as formalising a Senior Consents Officer position in each of
the three consents teams (Land use, Subdivision and Natural
Resources).
18.3 Implementation
of the Review outcomes was delayed by the Covid-19 pandemic lockdown, however
all of the new positions have now been filled. Tania Harris commenced as
the new Resource Consents Manager in January. Phil Doole has moved to the
second Principal Planner position. Paul Gibson, Jenna Wolter and Sam
Nevin have been appointed to the senior planner positions.
18.4 In the Subdivision Consents team, Alice Glover took up the new
Subdivision Approvals position in December 2020. We are continuing to use contractors for processing some subdivision
applications including the SHA consenting. We are also continuing to give
priority to s223 and s224 approvals, whenever possible, to avoid delaying the
issue of titles for completed developments.
18.5 In
December, we held a forum with the local surveyors to provide an update for
them on the changes happening to Council’s information systems and
planned enhancements to services, and to discuss processes and issues relating
to implementation of subdivision consents.
18.6 In the Natural Resources Consents team, Brigid Graney
joined us in September 2020, replacing Tim Dodd who left us to return to
Christchurch after the Covid-19 lockdown. Matthew McDowell also joined
this team in September 2020. Alice Hill departed in January 2021 to take
up a scholarship at the Cawthron Institute, and we have been trying to recruit
a replacement for her position. Some of the Natural Resources workload has been
contracted out, but there is a very limited pool of suitable contractors for
processing these types of resource consents.
18.7 In the Land Use consents team, Anna Pride joined us
in February 2021 to take up the new PIMs & LIMs position. Edna
Brownlee has continued to assist us with those work streams until Anna is
settled in. Ina Holst-Stoffregen left us in February, and recruitment of
a suitable replacement for her position based at the Takaka office has been a
challenge. We have had to continue using contractors to assist us with
processing land use consent applications.
18.8 The Administration support team currently
comprising four staff has handled a significant workload associated with
subdivisions and cost recovery, and the shift to electronic files.
Minette Hanekom has been covering extended staff leave over the summer.
18.9 The overall workload for
the Consents section also continues to be influenced by increases in demands on
the time of duty planners and other enquiries, as well as with pre‑application
work generally. The number of LIMs and Building Consent checks has also
steadily increased.
18.10 Thanks to the Consents staff and other
Council staff who regularly assist us in our work for their efforts in dealing
with the high workload and many complex applications, despite the staffing
changes and shortages.
Nil
Tasman District Council
Regulatory Committee Agenda – 01 April 2021
2.3 Environment and Planning Manager's Report
Information Only - No Decision
Required
|
Report To:
|
Regulatory Committee
|
|
Meeting Date:
|
1 April 2021
|
|
Report Author:
|
Dennis Bush-King, Environment and Planning Manager
|
|
Report Number:
|
RRC21-04-3
|
1.1 This report covers a number of general matters concerning the
regulatory activities of the Council since the 26 November 2020 meeting of the
Regulatory Committee.
|
That
the Regulatory Committee receives the Environment and Planning
Manager's Report RC21-04-3.
|
3.1 Councillors will be aware that from 23 February to 25 February 2021
the vessel Taharoa EOS was granted permission to lay up in harbor water to
effect repairs. The vessel is a 290 metre long,
45 metre wide, 92,000.00 ton bulk carrier which had a crack below the surface
of the water which needed to be urgently repaired.
3.2 After seeking reassurances from the vessel’s on-shore
representatives as well as the Ship’s Master, the Harbourmaster gave the
necessary approvals and the work was completed ahead of schedule with no
consequences.
4 Essential
Freshwater Package
4.1 Staff continue work towards implementing the Government’s
Freshwater package. A delay has been announced in implementing the winter
grazing regulations although staff indicate this may be less of an issue in
Tasman because the area used is less than 50ha or 10% of the landholding,
whichever is the greater.
4.2 For the rules that came into effect on 3 September 2020, we have had
no stand alone consent applications to process but the new fish pass and
wetland provisions have been bundled up in a small number of applications.
4.3 As from 1 July 2021, a national synthetic nitrogen fertiliser cap
will be in place for all pastoral farms in New Zealand. Fertiliser applications
of more than 190kg of nitrogen per hectare will require a noncomplying activity
resource consent. We have still to receive guidance on how this going to
work given we don’t currently monitor fertilizer application. There
is a wider concern with some provisions of the National Environmental Standard
where people may not know that they don’t comply and it will fall to
Council, on complaint, to deal with issues as a compliance matter rather than a
consentable issue.
4.4 Staff have been involved in responding to questions about the new
requirements for farm environment plans but still await draft regulations
expected in late 2021.
4.5 The meeting with Professor Skelton has yet to be reconvened to
discuss the water chapter of our new Tasman Environment Plan (TEP) planned for
the December 2024 deadline.
5 Compliance
Monitoring and Enforcement (CME)
5.1 The
Regional Council sector has released the latest CME
report which looks across all regional councils and unitary authorities.
The report provides insight into one of New Zealand’s biggest regulatory
systems, with year on year comparisons revealing an increase in the number of
complaints both responded to and attended in person by Council staff.
5.2 The report
is an audit of performance and aims to provide insight and improvement to CME
delivery, and share best practice across the sector. It covers the range
of activities from monitoring consents, working with landowners and industry to
ensure consents are being adhered to, and taking enforcement action against
those who don’t follow the rules.
5.3 Regional
and unitary councils across New Zealand administer over 250,000 resource
consents each year (Tasman accounting for 7,230 regional consents). In
2019/2020, the sector undertook almost 64,000 assessments of over 41,000
consents. Both the number of consents monitored and the number of
assessments completed increased by approximately 13,000 when compared to the
previous year. Over 32,000 complaints and incidents were attended to,
Tasman’s contribution being 1,135.
5.4 There were
also over 7,000 individual enforcement actions taken for breaches of the
Resource Management Act, Tasman’s contribution was 65 actions.
While our reported percentage of consents monitored was low at 26.5% compared
to a national average of 79.8%, we believe this undercounts the work we do
monitoring water permits and it reflects the reality that much effort goes into
district consent monitoring and responding to complaints only a portion of
which might relate to non-compliance with consents. It also overlooks our
reality that nearly two FTEs are involved in permitted activity monitoring.
5.5 FTE
resources dedicated to CME functions range from 0.03 per 1,000 people to 0.34
per 1,000 people, with a national average of 0.13. Tasman has 0.2 FTEs
per 1,000 people.
6 Resource
Management Reforms
6.1 On
10 February the Minister for the Environment, Hon David Parker, announced the process for the reform of the resource management
system. As anticipated, this will involve the repeal and replacement of
the Resource Management Act within this term of government. It will be
replaced with three new Acts: a Natural and Built Environments Act (NBEA); a
Strategic Planning Act (SPA); and a Managed Retreat and Climate Change
Adaptation Act (CCA). The Cabinet Paper and Ministerial press release are
available upon request.
6.2 In
summary, the process will involve:
· Progressing
the NBEA first, using a special process involving development of an
“exposure draft” that will be subject to a select committee inquiry
ahead of legislation being formally introduced to the House. The draft is
expected to be available
mid-year, with consultation occurring over the second half of the year, leading
to its introduction to the House at the end of this year. It is not
expected to be passed until the end of next year;
· The
exposure draft will contain the main structure and headings of the full NBEA,
with certain aspects fully drafted;
· The
SPA and CAA will not have an exposure draft process but will be developed in
parallel with the NBEA;
· The
Minister seeks Cabinet’s approval to establish a “Ministerial
Oversight Group” (MOG) which will have delegated decision making powers
to progress the exposure draft including development of policy and consultation
material, and associated powers relating to the SPA and CAA;
· Key
matters of policy the MOG are expected to address include: the purpose of the
NBEA; the mandatory national policies and standards to support the NBEA, which
include the establishment of biophysical limits, outcome and targets; and
providing for a single planning document for each region including the Coastal
Marine Area;
· The
purpose and supporting provisions of the NBEA proposed by the Randerson Review
Panel are proposed to be provisionally adopted, with the Minister recommending
caution in departing from that drafting;
· Direct
engagement with local government, central government agencies and the
Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is anticipated;
· Engagement
with tangata whenua is proposed to occur through a newly formed
“Māori Collective” comprised of existing groups such as the
National Iwi Chairs Forum and Kahui Wai Māori. However, this
engagement is proposed to occur after development of the exposure draft but
before it is finally confirmed.
6.3 Timing summary:
· Exposure draft of NBEA bill: available mid-year
· Introduction of NBEA and SPA to Parliament: end of 2021
· NBEA passed: end of 2022
· Implementation of new Acts: “a number of years”
· The Mayor, along with his counterparts at Nelson and Marlborough,
has written to the Minister about implementing a combined plan for the top of
the South and Councillors have been looped in. No reply has been received
at time of writing.
7.1 A
Tiny Home Expo ran for eight weeks in Motueka from 6 February to 5 April
2021. Staff assisted in getting the necessary approval though in time and
have been running interactive presentations at the Expo for the purpose of
promoting awareness about how the Building Act and TRMP apply to this type of
accommodation. I believe it has had the additional benefit of encouraging
a more positive and proactive engagement with Council with respect to the rules
that guide this type of development. These efforts I believe have been
received with appreciation along with requests for further advice which we are
pleased to provide as resources allow.
8.1 Richmond
is reaching the size and geographic spread, with a population of 15,600 people,
where it might be time to consider whether or not it should be partitioned into
suburbs. Richmond West is undergoing rapid development but the
appellation is not appropriate going forward. While on the compass it may
be towards the west, some people associate it with the northern boundary of
Richmond, while others are referring to it as Applebyfields or Lower Queen
Street.
8.2 The
naming of suburbs has to be approved by the New Zealand Geographic Board
Ngā Pou Taunaha (NZGB) and follow the NZGB Standard 60002 for place
naming. The process would be for Council to make recommendations
following its own process of seeking feedback from the public and this can be
done through a consultation paper.
8.3 Drawing
the boundary lines should be relatively easy but choosing names that reflect
the history, development, or events could be more challenging. The
suggestion is that there be four suburbs as shown on Attachment 1 and I
have taken the liberty of suggesting four names to provoke the conversation if
Councillors wish to go down this path. The choice of Richmond Central is
self-explanatory and Hope formalises the traditional descriptor for this area;
Templemore is the name given to one of the original farms in the area and is
the name of the main distributor road; Waimea is a translocation of the term
associated with the Plains and the Waimea River, but is a te reo name
reflective of our history.
8.4 Staff
can work with Ward Councillors and iwi in preparing a consultation paper to
bring back to the Committee for release if this proposal is to be pursued.
9.1 Councillors
will be aware that water restrictions for some parts of the district have been
in place. Attachment 2 shows the rainfall figures for our
representative sites and indicates rainfall has been less that the cumulative
average but more than last year. The Motupiko has been the driest
catchment and as we move into autumn looks to be getting drier (see Attachment
3).
9.2 The Waimea Plains were not in restrictions for
too long this year although we were still applying the transitional
arrangements pending completion of the Dam. Unaffiliated permit holders,
had the post-Dam arrangements been at play, would have been unable to abstract
water for about a further two weeks beyond the 25 days when restrictions were
first introduced because of the need for the river to return to a 6,000 l/sec
moving average.
10.1 Attachment
4 is the Action Sheet which updates Councillors on action items from
previous Committee meetings relevant to the Regulatory portfolio.
|
1.⇩
|
Suburbs
For Richmond
|
29
|
|
2.⇩
|
Rainfall
Figures - 2019-2021
|
31
|
|
3.⇩
|
Motupiko
Rainfall - 2019-2021
|
33
|
|
4.⇩
|
Action
Sheet
|
35
|
Tasman District Council
Regulatory Committee Agenda – 01 April 2021
8.4 Freedom Camping Update
Information Only - No Decision
Required
|
Report To:
|
Regulatory Committee
|
|
Meeting Date:
|
1 April 2021
|
|
Report Author:
|
Adrian Humphries, Regulatory Manager
|
|
Report Number:
|
RRC21-04-4
|
1.1 This
report updates the Council on freedom camping issues over the last
summer.
A similar number of infringements have been issued to last summer, however, the
proportion issued in Golden Bay is far greater (74% compared to 47%). Almost
80% of the infringements were issued to New Zealanders reflecting the lack of
international visitors. There has also been a marked increase in hostility
towards enforcement officers.
1.2 Formal
complaint numbers have dropped, but social media is increasingly used as a vehicle
for complaints. Anonymity and lack of detail make this form of complaint very
difficult to follow up.
1.3 Despite
increased enforcement in Golden Bay, there were many still willing to risk
being fined following changes the Freedom Camping Bylaw. Use of non-Tasman
District Council public areas increased in popularity.
1.4 Responsible
Camping Fund money has been disbursed and an interim report is attached.
1.5 Homelessness
issues have been encountered more frequently by our officers.
That
the Regulatory Committee receives the Freedom Camping Update RRC21-04-4.
3.1 This
report informs the Council of the effect of freedom camping on the District
during summer 2021/2021.
4 Background
and Discussion
4.1 Freedom
camping is still a contentious subject. The permissive legislation, the desire
to allow responsible camping, to encourage tourism in the District, and the
need for itinerant workers is tempered by public perceptions of poor behaviour,
limitation of access, cost and dislike of freeloading by some of the community.
4.2 The
effect of the Covid-19 pandemic on international tourism and changes to the
Freedom Camping Bylaw in December 2020 have had a notable effect on freedom
camping behavior as discussed below.
5 Main
Points of Interest
Enforcement
5.1 Enforcement
Officers were very active this year. In addition to the $46,000 allocated
budget, the Responsible Camping Fund provided an additional $22,000
specifically for this purpose. At the start of the season, enforcement patrols
were roughly split 50/50 between Golden Bay and the rest of the District. It
became apparent that the number of non-compliant campers outside of Golden Bay
was far less than in previous years, so the majority focus was moved to Golden
Bay at the end of January. In total 156 (116 in Golden Bay) infringements have
been issued from 1 December 2020 to 17 March 2021, as opposed to 160 (75 in
Golden Bay) for the corresponding period last year. A breakdown of the
infringements, locations, nationalities, and payment status are shown in
Attachment 1, 33 (21%) were international travelers and the rest New
Zealanders.
5.2 Officers
have experienced a higher frequency of hostility this summer from those caught
breaking the rules. A sense of entitlement to use public spaces for camping is
probably a driver for the way people behave. We are awaiting prosecution of an
offender who assaulted one of our officers at Rototai Reserve.
Complaints
5.3 There
was a significant reduction of formal complaints this year using service
requests – a total of 64 from 1 December 2020 to 17 March 2021, compared
to 131 from 1 December 2019 to 31 March 2020. There have been many negative
comments on social media, however; we chose not to respond because, in part
because of the anonymity of the posters and a lack of detail given.
Waitapu Bridge
5.4 As
required in the bylaw review, the facilities at Waitapu Bridge were removed and
control of the area handed over to the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA),
with input from iwi. Despite this, use of this area continued to attract
complaints, particularly on social media. Staff spoke to the NZTA Manager in
control of the area and offered to assist where possible, however, we have no
enforcement jurisdiction there any longer. NZTA and iwi intend the area to
become a picnic spot for everyone.
Taupata Point
5.5 As
required in the bylaw review, the facilities at Taupata Point were removed and
the area closed to non-self-contained vehicles. This caused confusion as some
people thought that all forms of camping had been banned there. Signage
indicating the changes was defaced and a bund installed. Engineering staff are
working with the Golden Bay Community Board on the future of this area.
Decks Reserve
and Alexander Bluff
5.6 These
areas have been relatively lightly used in comparison to previous years. It is
believed that this largely due to the reduced numbers of itinerant workers
seeking free accommodation this year. Motueka Beach Reserve continues to be
popular with self-contained campers. Most complaints in this area related to
people using the adjacent car park for camping; this is a prohibited area and
six infringements were issued in this area.
Other Areas
5.7 Due
to closure of Waitapu to all camping and Taupata to campers in non-self-contained
vehicles, other areas were used. Uruwhenua Reserve (Lindsay’s Bridge) was
heavily used at times. The Blue Hole, controlled by Land Information New
Zealand (LINZ) and several Department of Conservation (DOC) controlled sites
were also well used, e.g. Wharariki beach car park. We have no jurisdiction in
these areas.
Workshop
5.8 In
an attempt to identify possible solutions to ongoing concerns about freedom
camping in Golden Bay, a workshop was held with members of the Community Board.
It was agreed at the workshop that:
5.8.1 Encouragement
would be given to private operators and businesses to identify possible camping
areas.
5.8.2 The
Board would liaise with iwi to identify any areas they consider suitable for
freedom camping.
5.9 The
Board subsequently decided at a meeting in March 2021 that the intent of the
Responsible Camping Strategy should be the guide for any future freedom camping
initiatives in Golden Bay.
Responsible
Camping Fund (RCF)
5.10 A
requirement of the RCF is that an interim and final report be submitted to the
Ministry. The interim report is attached (Attachment 2).
Homelessness
5.11 A
number of homeless people were encountered by our officers. These were
complicated cases and were referred to support agencies. Itinerant living has
long been a choice by some and may be growing in popularity given the cost of
housing.
Numbers
6.1 Despite
the pandemic massively limiting international travel, Tasman is still a very
popular destination for freedom campers. An analysis of the infringements
issued shows that 79% were issued to New Zealanders. It seems that a
combination of lower numbers of itinerant workers and a willingness by
employers to accommodate those that do such work, has led to far fewer problems
in the Motueka area.
Spread
6.2 As
was anticipated, we have witnessed a spreading out of freedom campers,
especially in Golden Bay. It appears that many are now aware of some areas
where we have no jurisdiction and camp there to avoid sanction.
Bylaw
6.3 In
order to follow the Responsible Camping Strategy we would need to review the
bylaw again to remove areas where non-self-contained vehicles are still
permitted i.e. Alexander Bluff and Fittal Street. Does the Council wish to
proceed to this effect?
Central Government
Initiatives
6.4 Tourism
Minister Stuart Nash says freedom camping in vehicles that are not
self-contained will be banned as part of efforts to market New Zealand to
overseas tourists. We await further details on how this will be enforced.
Homelessness
6.5 Council
staff are regularly in contact with people who are homeless. There are other
agencies and charities with a remit to help such people, and the Council can do
little more than refer people to these agencies. Our interventions are often
criticised as being insensitive but there is no mandate to do more.
Other agencies
6.6 Given
the strategy intent to remove areas for non-self-contained vehicles, it is
likely that other agencies such as DOC, LINZ and NZTA will experience more use
of their areas by such campers. How we work with these agencies to protect
areas, the public, and the campers is something the Council may wish to
consider going forward.
|
1.⇩
|
Freedom Camping 2021 Infringements locations and
nationalities
|
41
|
|
2.⇩
|
Responsible Camping 2020_21 - Tasman DC Interim Report -
February 2021
|
49
|
